(April 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm)Abishalom Wrote: What information have you given me (rhetorical question because I read your post)? You would not accept an article from a creationist website yet you expect me to accept a poorly constructed "rebuttal" from an evolution website.
Who the FUCK are you to tell me what I would and would not accept?
Here's a free fucking clue for you: If a source has adequate citations which are peer reviewed, I don't give a flying fuck what the source is.
The first page I quoted was a summary of some of the evidence (with citations). The second was an article (with citations). Poorly researched, my ass.
Quote:I only post information from independent sites and not someone else's argument (that's not evidence) form an extremist website (one who takes a side in this discussion), so I expect the same form any atheists.
Are you even aware of the man-years of research that went into the talk.origins FAQ?
Quote:Let's examine the actual evidence...
Yes, lets. While you're at it, you might investigate isochron dating (which does not depend on known parent/daughter isotopes). You might also provide some insight on means by which solid rocks can be contaminated in such a way that is a) not known and accounted for by science, and b) applicable to the dating method being used. The second article I linked has adequate citations to investigate your assertions. Can you find a problem with the particular evidence that the conclusion came from, or are you just going to throw around generalized assertions?